RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Sanity -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 7:51:01 AM)


It was the respected consensus at the time. Only deniers dared challenge it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain
That' s why they believed the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, which was wrong.

They did not believe it, they knew it to be so.





Rule -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 8:16:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
It was the respected consensus at the time. Only deniers dared challenge it...

Must have been very blind deniers, then, that did not trust the testimony of their own seeing relatives and friends and neighbours.

It is the respected concensus in The Netherlands that if the sea breaks the dike, then our land will be flooded. Facts do not have anything to do with belief. Facts do not exist because people believe in facts, but because facts are. Anyone who does that know that, has been knocked on his noggin or needs to be knocked on his noggin.




vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 10:34:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain
That' s why they believed the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, which was wrong.

They did not believe it, they knew it to be so.



Who is the they to whom you refer? And when?

Here is a Wiki article on the topic.


When a ship is at the horizon its lower part is invisible due to Earth's curvature. This was one of the first arguments favoring a round-Earth model.

Aristotle (384 BCE - 322 BCE) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school."

Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10)
Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:
• Every portion of the Earth tends toward the center until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9-21)
• Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
• The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31-298a10)
The concepts of symmetry, equilibrium and cyclic repetition permeated Aristotle's work. In his Meteorology he divided the world into five climatic zones: two temperate areas separated by a torrid zone near the equator, and two cold inhospitable regions, "one near our upper or northern pole and the other near the ... southern pole," both impenetrable and girdled with ice (Meteorologica, 362a31-35). Although no humans could survive in the frigid zones, inhabitants in the southern temperate regions could exist.

[edit] Hellenistic era
Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes (276 BCE - 194 BCE) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BCE. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to ten percent.[3][4]"

vincent
"




vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 10:38:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


It was the respected consensus at the time. Only deniers dared challenge it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain
That' s why they believed the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, which was wrong.

They did not believe it, they knew it to be so.




You are soooo wrong Sanity. Only deniers? Funny. Please refer to my post 103 of the Wiki article above.

Vincent




Brain -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 10:44:52 AM)

I may be wrong when I assert there is no such thing as God but it is extremely unlikely. I took a course in statistics and I got 89% final mark so I know something about probability. I am 99.99999999% sure God does not exist except in people's delusional minds. But I am willing to admit there is a .00000001% chance I'm wrong.

All this is making me think of baseball right now and thinking about managers who play the percentages using left-handed pitchers against lefthanded hitters and going with the percentages in the situations. Most of the time it works out for them and they get the guy out or the guy they sent up to hit gets a base hit. So I'm sticking with the probabilities in saying there is no God even though I recognize that could be wrong but I maintain it's extremely unlikely. The facts point to there being no God whether it's in astronomy or evolutionary biology.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

You can't call it the Richard Dawkins delusion because it's based on facts, not fantasy. You have to call it the Dawkins God reality check because there is no antonym for delusion.

To assert as a fact that there is no God is delusional no matter what you call it. There is no way we can know such a thing, and plenty of room among our unanswered questions for all manner of unexpected surprises for everyone. The only real mistake we can make in the circumstances is to have a closed mind.

K.








Kirata -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 11:44:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I took a course in statistics and I got 89% final mark so I know something about probability.

A B+ in a single statistics course, eh? I'll make a note.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I'm sticking with the probabilities in saying there is no God even though I recognize that could be wrong but I maintain it's extremely unlikely.

Well that's an intelligent statement (at last) and honestly, in terms of the idea of God that is being rejected here, I don't fault you for holding that view. Because frankly, although there are some very interesting unanswered questions out there, with potentially mind-blowing answers, the likelihood of those answers satisfying anyone with a strictly doctrinal faith in one or another of our organized Western religions is probably somewhere between zip and zero.

K.






Sanity -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 12:03:35 PM)


Glad you figured out that statement was largely tongue in cheek...

[;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You are soooo wrong Sanity. Only deniers? Funny. Please refer to my post 103 of the Wiki article above.

Vincent




Moonhead -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 12:05:55 PM)

It's quite possible to imagine a universe without a God, but you couldn't have a God without a universe. Probably not relevant, but I just thought I'd mention that.




Rule -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 12:08:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Here is a Wiki article on the topic.

So very boring. Do not you have your own thoughts to present? Cannot you think outside of the box? (No need to answer: being omniscient I know your answer already.)




Rule -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 12:10:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
It's quite possible to imagine a universe without a God, but you couldn't have a God without a universe. Probably not relevant, but I just thought I'd mention that.

You are mistaken.




Moonhead -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 12:14:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
It's quite possible to imagine a universe without a God, but you couldn't have a God without a universe. Probably not relevant, but I just thought I'd mention that.

You are mistaken.


How so?




Brain -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 12:15:57 PM)

When you start talking about Aristotle and Plato of course that was before Christ or before Christianity and it's my opinion that Christianity does not help people in terms of being scientific.

Christianity is usually slowing down the progress of mankind in order to protect its interests and maintain its relevance. That's why they did those bad things to Galileo like putting him in jail and it affected Copernicus.

About 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses."[60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

The Greek people have made a fabulous contribution to mankind or civilization but they certainly were not Christians or Muslims or Jews, and they didn't believe in one God but several.

[/quote]

Who is the they to whom you refer? And?

Here is a Wiki article on the topic.


When a ship is at the horizon its lower invisible due to Earth's curvature. This was one of the first arguments favoring a round-Earth model.

Aristotle (384 BCE - 322 BCE) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school."

Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10)
Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:
• Every portion of the Earth tends toward the center until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9-21)
• Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
• The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31-298a10)
The concepts of symmetry, equilibrium and cyclic repetition permeated Aristotle's work. In his Meteorology he divided the world into five climatic zones: two temperate areas separated by a torrid zone near the equator, and two cold inhospitable regions, "one near our upper or northern pole and the other near the ... southern pole," both impenetrable and girdled with ice (Meteorologica, 362a31-35). Although no humans could survive in the frigid zones, inhabitants in the southern temperate regions could exist.

[edit] Hellenistic era
Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes (276 BCE - 194 BCE) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BCE. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to ten percent.[3][4]"

vincent
"
[/quote]




mnottertail -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 12:50:01 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

in case you want to consider the vastness.

Ron




vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 1:12:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Here is a Wiki article on the topic.

So very boring. Do not you have your own thoughts to present? Cannot you think outside of the box? (No need to answer: being omniscient I know your answer already.)



The problem is when your head is inside a box your own stupidity, insanity, and arrogance are reinforced with the reverberations and echoes of your own vanity. You should open the lid above your head once in awhile and permit some new thoughtful information to intercede instead of allowing your thoughts to bounce back and forth and magnify the impact of the damaging collisions against your errr..... brain(?) I imagine this ego trip you are enjoying is quite addictive. I will no longer contribute to the care and feeding of your childish vanity.

vincent




vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 1:16:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

in case you want to consider the vastness.

Ron



Thanks for the Monthy Python trip around the galaxy, Ron. Great fun.

Vincent




Rule -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 1:18:14 PM)

Okay.




Kirata -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 1:57:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The problem is when your head is inside a box your own stupidity, insanity, and arrogance are reinforced... I will no longer contribute to the care and feeding of your childish vanity.

Now, now... let's debate in a kindly fashion.

K.




Rule -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 2:14:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
It's quite possible to imagine a universe without a God, but you couldn't have a God without a universe. Probably not relevant, but I just thought I'd mention that.

You are mistaken.


How so?
Though the universe is a special part of the Divine, the Divine 'exists' 'outside' our universe.

As for the incarnate gods, yes they require our universe in order to exist - as does everyone and everything else. These days we call them humans, of course, not incarnate gods.




Moonhead -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 2:38:49 PM)

That's actually a big contradiction right from the off there: either He's everything (the notion the Wiccans have picked up on in a big way) or he's outside of everything. It can't be both, however ineffable He is.




switch2please -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 2:54:37 PM)

"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together....."
(listening to the Styx version on the Big Bang Theory album...we are amused)




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875